weight reduction?
6/19/06, 12:19 PM
#41
Jason,
I'm pretty sure the front control arms on the car are already aluminum
An aluminum bumper beam sounds like a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure some companies are even doing composite (plasitc) rad supports.
An aluminum driveshaft would be a huge bonus. It could end up costing the same as a 2-piece steel unit. With a lower mass, vibration issues won't show up until very very high RPM's, additionally, there is less parasytic loss in the drivetrain.
I'm pretty sure the front control arms on the car are already aluminum
An aluminum bumper beam sounds like a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure some companies are even doing composite (plasitc) rad supports.
An aluminum driveshaft would be a huge bonus. It could end up costing the same as a 2-piece steel unit. With a lower mass, vibration issues won't show up until very very high RPM's, additionally, there is less parasytic loss in the drivetrain.
6/19/06, 01:28 PM
#42
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Galaxie
Jason,
I'm pretty sure the front control arms on the car are already aluminum
An aluminum bumper beam sounds like a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure some companies are even doing composite (plasitc) rad supports.
An aluminum driveshaft would be a huge bonus. It could end up costing the same as a 2-piece steel unit. With a lower mass, vibration issues won't show up until very very high RPM's, additionally, there is less parasytic loss in the drivetrain.
I'm pretty sure the front control arms on the car are already aluminum
An aluminum bumper beam sounds like a good idea as well. I'm pretty sure some companies are even doing composite (plasitc) rad supports.
An aluminum driveshaft would be a huge bonus. It could end up costing the same as a 2-piece steel unit. With a lower mass, vibration issues won't show up until very very high RPM's, additionally, there is less parasytic loss in the drivetrain.
Alcoa builds aluminum bumper supports and engine cradles. The Chevy Impala actually has an aluminum engine cradle. I also know that my dad's 545i has aluminum suspension peices. The downside to aluminum cars is insurance. My father had an 01 Audi A8L and insurance on the car was very high. The reason being is their were only two shops in the Chicagoland area that were Audi certified to fix the ASF.
What about Fiberglass fenders(or SMC like mentioned above) too? Ford could also try using a balsa wood floor ala the C5/C6. If Ford thinks outside the box, they can easily make the S197 lighter. Heck, guys on this forum have roughly 100 lbs off the car by doing a Aluminum DS and some BMR parts.
6/19/06, 01:57 PM
#43
Fibreglass and balsa wood floors can work on a low volume Corvette, but I see it being a real challenge on a car with 8x the volume.
The big thing is cost, you have to justify any cost increase
There are cases where a weight reduction can also be a cost reduction (ie. my driveline idea, although I haven't done the math on it)
The big thing is cost, you have to justify any cost increase
There are cases where a weight reduction can also be a cost reduction (ie. my driveline idea, although I haven't done the math on it)
6/19/06, 02:23 PM
#45
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: September 2, 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 2,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Galaxie
Fibreglass and balsa wood floors can work on a low volume Corvette, but I see it being a real challenge on a car with 8x the volume.
The big thing is cost, you have to justify any cost increase
There are cases where a weight reduction can also be a cost reduction (ie. my driveline idea, although I haven't done the math on it)
The big thing is cost, you have to justify any cost increase
There are cases where a weight reduction can also be a cost reduction (ie. my driveline idea, although I haven't done the math on it)
Cost is the issue in many Mustang decision. If it removed 200 lbs from the car, well then you realistically don't need as much power, don't need bigger brakes, etc. Again, I think from a performance standpoint, everyone would like a 3300 lbs Mustang GT. That's not too much to ask for!
6/24/06, 11:48 PM
#46
Member
Join Date: April 12, 2006
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the S197 is a bit heavier than the previous models...but say, on a fox body/SN95....once youve added subframe connectors, a roll cage, suspension goodies and a strut tower brace to make it ast stiff as the S197, i bet they would be nearly as heavy as the new stangs. Considering the stiffness and handling ability of the new GT's, I can see the weight increase as being a somewhat fair trade off.
6/28/06, 11:31 PM
#47
Legacy TMS Member
Originally Posted by max2000jp
I don't know how the production costs would be in the Mustang, but it was an idea I just put out there.
Cost is the issue in many Mustang decision. If it removed 200 lbs from the car, well then you realistically don't need as much power, don't need bigger brakes, etc. Again, I think from a performance standpoint, everyone would like a 3300 lbs Mustang GT. That's not too much to ask for!
Cost is the issue in many Mustang decision. If it removed 200 lbs from the car, well then you realistically don't need as much power, don't need bigger brakes, etc. Again, I think from a performance standpoint, everyone would like a 3300 lbs Mustang GT. That's not too much to ask for!
7/2/06, 06:46 PM
#49
GT Member
Join Date: July 30, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=max2000jp] If Ford thinks outside the box, they can easily make the S197 lighter. quote] That is the part of the Bold moves etc that is not getting talked about. To much of "I can't for" insert reason here. At what point does the S-197 platform be deamed to have paid back its development costs? If the intent with an 09 reskin is to take it out another say 5 years, then I cannot comprehend how it won't need some serious reengineering considering that the world is just about fed up with dinogas and its inherant problems. So while everyone is waiting for the next materials revolution(aerogel), some smart cookie is going to just start using this stuff and like magic the costs come down.(17 yrs areospace experiance) Second, where the Hell is all the magic engineering like 48 volt electrical systems and superplastic forming of Aluminium? All of this was touted at least 10 years ago to solve these sorts of problems. Folks will not give up content(at least until the boomers are dead) so we need to implement these existing technologies NOW . The fact is that if we are going to have a V-8 Mustang by 2010, its going to have to, O I don't know, CHANGE OR DIE! Ironic isn't it? PS We really need a smile for irony.
9/20/06, 02:15 PM
#50
Originally Posted by JETSOLVER
If the intent with an 09 reskin is to take it out another say 5 years, then I cannot comprehend how it won't need some serious reengineering considering that the world is just about fed up with dinogas and its inherant problems.
Originally Posted by JETSOLVER
The fact is that if we are going to have a V-8 Mustang by 2010, its going to have to, O I don't know, CHANGE OR DIE!
9/20/06, 02:25 PM
#51
Tasca Super Boss 429 Member
Join Date: February 1, 2004
Posts: 3,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the wieght you'd save in such a reduction would be in sheet metal and some unibody. Compared to the drivetrain, fitting, and suspension weights you're not saving much.
9/20/06, 02:37 PM
#52
aluminum engine blocks have eliminated alot of weight. In addition I would like to see lighter drivetrain and suspension components. However, i think that would drive the price higher.
9/20/06, 02:49 PM
#53
The 3 Series BMW coupe has been used as an example of why the Mustang weighs too much in this thread, but in 6 cylinder trim that car weighs about what a Mustang GT does.......close enough that any difference is pretty insignificant. Some may argue that the BMW is a luxury car (it isn't ...it's a high end sports coupe) that it has more content (this is a pretty weak argument as they both have all the luxury content items that actually add weight, like AC.) or that the BMW has better seating for four (it does, but it isn't any larger than the Mustang with Ford trading some interior room for the Mustangs long-hood short deck look)
Some have discussed how their SN95 stangs weighed less, but the reasons for this should be obvious. Ever wonder where all that extra rigidity in the S197 came from? Some apparently do and my message for them is....stop. The SN95 was a flexi-flyer big time compared to the S197, the difference is genuinely huge between the two. A lot of that stiffness and rigidity came at the cost of some weight, but 3500lb for a car in this segment is hardly heavy. The extra wb the S197 packs accounts for some of this added weight too, but it also accounts for the far superior proportions of the S197 and the much better balance the new car exhibits.
Name a car the size of the Mustang that weighs significantly less? News flash, virtually none do. Name a car the size of the Mustang with better room for four? They exist, but they are not in abundance and how many of those have proportions suitable for a Mustang? (somehow the BMW's stubby nose and squat profile just don't seem like good pony car material..and that is the price BMW paid to get that room ina car this size)
I would much rather see the Mustang GT maintain its current weight of ~3500lb loaded and gain a 5.8L Boss V-8, 6-speed manual, GT500 steering, and Control Blade IRS while improving even further on the cars excellent chassis...none of which is far fetched.
I think a good deal of the weight envy we currently see is spawned by the C6 Vette, which is plenty light for it's size but is much smaller than the pony and gives up a lot to get there. Yeah, it's fast and it handles well....it's also not the best screwed together piece on earth, creaks like an old door over low speed bumps, and falls down relative to any major competitor in these same areas. When looking at the numbers this may not seem like a big deal as you mouth the words "wow" to yourself, but I would think that comments like Jeremy Clarkson blasting the Z06 he previously gushed over after having to actually drive it home, or the growing used car market for that same budget "supercar", should tell everyone something.
People indeed ooh and ahh over that car until they actually have to live with it, and all the stuff GM gave up to make it so light. The C6 suffers from the same problems, although the Z06 suffers from them on a greater level. GM missed the mark with the C6 and the Z06 since a world beater is what they wanted and a quicker, cheaper sports car is what they got. This is truly a is a shame given just how close to world beater status it is, with GM apparently never realizing that they could have gained a lot of real car goodness and practicality by sacrificing just a little weight and speed. How it has not occured to these guys that more speed is not why they cannot overtake Porsche is beyond me, but obviously it hasn't and the pursuite toward light and faster, but never toward a truly refined or usable sports car, continues.
Would I make that kind of trade with the Mustang? No way.
Some have discussed how their SN95 stangs weighed less, but the reasons for this should be obvious. Ever wonder where all that extra rigidity in the S197 came from? Some apparently do and my message for them is....stop. The SN95 was a flexi-flyer big time compared to the S197, the difference is genuinely huge between the two. A lot of that stiffness and rigidity came at the cost of some weight, but 3500lb for a car in this segment is hardly heavy. The extra wb the S197 packs accounts for some of this added weight too, but it also accounts for the far superior proportions of the S197 and the much better balance the new car exhibits.
Name a car the size of the Mustang that weighs significantly less? News flash, virtually none do. Name a car the size of the Mustang with better room for four? They exist, but they are not in abundance and how many of those have proportions suitable for a Mustang? (somehow the BMW's stubby nose and squat profile just don't seem like good pony car material..and that is the price BMW paid to get that room ina car this size)
I would much rather see the Mustang GT maintain its current weight of ~3500lb loaded and gain a 5.8L Boss V-8, 6-speed manual, GT500 steering, and Control Blade IRS while improving even further on the cars excellent chassis...none of which is far fetched.
I think a good deal of the weight envy we currently see is spawned by the C6 Vette, which is plenty light for it's size but is much smaller than the pony and gives up a lot to get there. Yeah, it's fast and it handles well....it's also not the best screwed together piece on earth, creaks like an old door over low speed bumps, and falls down relative to any major competitor in these same areas. When looking at the numbers this may not seem like a big deal as you mouth the words "wow" to yourself, but I would think that comments like Jeremy Clarkson blasting the Z06 he previously gushed over after having to actually drive it home, or the growing used car market for that same budget "supercar", should tell everyone something.
People indeed ooh and ahh over that car until they actually have to live with it, and all the stuff GM gave up to make it so light. The C6 suffers from the same problems, although the Z06 suffers from them on a greater level. GM missed the mark with the C6 and the Z06 since a world beater is what they wanted and a quicker, cheaper sports car is what they got. This is truly a is a shame given just how close to world beater status it is, with GM apparently never realizing that they could have gained a lot of real car goodness and practicality by sacrificing just a little weight and speed. How it has not occured to these guys that more speed is not why they cannot overtake Porsche is beyond me, but obviously it hasn't and the pursuite toward light and faster, but never toward a truly refined or usable sports car, continues.
Would I make that kind of trade with the Mustang? No way.
9/20/06, 04:25 PM
#54
The Vette and the Stang are both great cars. I believe both are Car & Driver bests. But you can't compare the the two. There isn't much that will beat a C6 on the road or track. If anyone wants to trade their C6 for my mustang GT, I'll do it. :-)
9/20/06, 05:41 PM
#55
[quote=JETSOLVER]
Easy big boy. If it was't for the Boomers who grew up with the original Mustang, the Mustang would have been dead in the 1980s, replaced by a 4 cyl FWD car. Ever hear of the "Probe"? It was supposed to be the next Mustang, until the Boomers complained.
Not only that, but the generations following the Boomers want even more content than the Boomers. Most "kids" I see today have never been in a car with crank up windows, manual tranny, AM only radio, didn't have power brakes, power steering, etc., etc. , etc.
Hate to break it to you but today's kids are going to demand more "content" as they age than Boomers ever did.
Originally Posted by max2000jp
Folks will not give up content(at least until the boomers are dead)
Not only that, but the generations following the Boomers want even more content than the Boomers. Most "kids" I see today have never been in a car with crank up windows, manual tranny, AM only radio, didn't have power brakes, power steering, etc., etc. , etc.
Hate to break it to you but today's kids are going to demand more "content" as they age than Boomers ever did.
9/20/06, 07:01 PM
#56
Originally Posted by neil07gt
The Vette and the Stang are both great cars. I believe both are Car & Driver bests. But you can't compare the the two. There isn't much that will beat a C6 on the road or track. If anyone wants to trade their C6 for my mustang GT, I'll do it. :-)
9/21/06, 03:57 PM
#57
GT Member
Join Date: July 30, 2004
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote=V10]
Ever hear of the "Probe"? It was supposed to be the next Mustang, until the Boomers complained.
Hate to break it to you but today's kids are going to demand more "content" as they age than Boomers ever did.
Oddly enough, I was one of the people who took the time to write to Ford and present my views. About that and a few other issues as well. And it doesn't take much thought to conclude that the fact that ALL cars are heavier, larger in every dimension and require a couple of hundred feet of wiring to support the audio/video
systems and 6-12 way heated power seats and on and on is a direct response to the market up until now. Which in realistic demographic terms (and a VERY large part of the premium Mustang market this time around) means BOOMERS. The whole reason for the growth in the "tuner" market is the fact that the average person under the age fo 30 is purchasing basic transportation with little in the way of creature comforts and as thier earning power increases, so does thier ability to add things like that aftermarket. I prefer not going into the depth required in a discussion of this HUGE shift in the Western worlds consumer future, but I can safely conclude that at some point, without radical(by current standards anyway) change in engineering priorities, more and more of the follow on generations discretionary dollars are going to find the "American" car more and more of an anachronism. WAIT THIS JUST IN!!! They already do.....
Originally Posted by JETSOLVER
Ever hear of the "Probe"? It was supposed to be the next Mustang, until the Boomers complained.
Hate to break it to you but today's kids are going to demand more "content" as they age than Boomers ever did.
systems and 6-12 way heated power seats and on and on is a direct response to the market up until now. Which in realistic demographic terms (and a VERY large part of the premium Mustang market this time around) means BOOMERS. The whole reason for the growth in the "tuner" market is the fact that the average person under the age fo 30 is purchasing basic transportation with little in the way of creature comforts and as thier earning power increases, so does thier ability to add things like that aftermarket. I prefer not going into the depth required in a discussion of this HUGE shift in the Western worlds consumer future, but I can safely conclude that at some point, without radical(by current standards anyway) change in engineering priorities, more and more of the follow on generations discretionary dollars are going to find the "American" car more and more of an anachronism. WAIT THIS JUST IN!!! They already do.....
9/21/06, 07:04 PM
#58
[quote=JETSOLVER;745083]
And what happens when those under 30 persons are suddenly 40 and 50 years old? Do you really believe they will still want basic transportation?
One of the primary reasons why Ford, GM & Chrysler are loosing market share is that they are late to bring comfort, convenience and luxury items to the Ford, Chevy & Dodge brands. Their marketing strategy has been to make the customer buy up to a Buick, Caddillac, Lincoln or Chrysler to get luxury or convenience features. The only problem is that the Toyota, Honda, Nissian brands have been offering them w/o forcing customers to move up to their premium nameplates.
Originally Posted by V10
Oddly enough, I was one of the people who took the time to write to Ford and present my views. About that and a few other issues as well. And it doesn't take much thought to conclude that the fact that ALL cars are heavier, larger in every dimension and require a couple of hundred feet of wiring to support the audio/video systems and 6-12 way heated power seats and on and on is a direct response to the market up until now. Which in realistic demographic terms (and a VERY large part of the premium Mustang market this time around) means BOOMERS. The whole reason for the growth in the "tuner" market is the fact that the average person under the age fo 30 is purchasing basic transportation with little in the way of creature comforts and as thier earning power increases, so does thier ability to add things like that aftermarket. I prefer not going into the depth required in a discussion of this HUGE shift in the Western worlds consumer future, but I can safely conclude that at some point, without radical(by current standards anyway) change in engineering priorities, more and more of the follow on generations discretionary dollars are going to find the "American" car more and more of an anachronism. WAIT THIS JUST IN!!! They already do.....
systems and 6-12 way heated power seats and on and on is a direct response to the market up until now. Which in realistic demographic terms (and a VERY large part of the premium Mustang market this time around) means BOOMERS. The whole reason for the growth in the "tuner" market is the fact that the average person under the age fo 30 is purchasing basic transportation with little in the way of creature comforts and as thier earning power increases, so does thier ability to add things like that aftermarket. I prefer not going into the depth required in a discussion of this HUGE shift in the Western worlds consumer future, but I can safely conclude that at some point, without radical(by current standards anyway) change in engineering priorities, more and more of the follow on generations discretionary dollars are going to find the "American" car more and more of an anachronism. WAIT THIS JUST IN!!! They already do.....And what happens when those under 30 persons are suddenly 40 and 50 years old? Do you really believe they will still want basic transportation?
One of the primary reasons why Ford, GM & Chrysler are loosing market share is that they are late to bring comfort, convenience and luxury items to the Ford, Chevy & Dodge brands. Their marketing strategy has been to make the customer buy up to a Buick, Caddillac, Lincoln or Chrysler to get luxury or convenience features. The only problem is that the Toyota, Honda, Nissian brands have been offering them w/o forcing customers to move up to their premium nameplates.
10/2/06, 11:50 PM
#59
Member
Join Date: August 24, 2004
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just spent the day driving some fairly exotic cars, F430, Gallardo, DB9, Ford GT, and ZO6, and you know what.... The lightest car was the most fun to drive!
Keep the horsepower of our favorite pony the same and invest the development dollars in making the car lighter. It will handle better, stop shorter, accelerate quicker, get better gas milage, wear tires slower, and probably lots of things I haven't thought of yet!
At least give us a lightweight option. I love my Cobra R. When ever I drive it, I wonder why Ford had to build just 250 of them that way. I love the way it rides, I do not notice the lack of sound deadening, I figure the cheapo interior is just part of going fast and stopping quick.
If you want a two ton boulevard cruiser, buy a Shelby! Make mine a option delete Boss!
Keep the horsepower of our favorite pony the same and invest the development dollars in making the car lighter. It will handle better, stop shorter, accelerate quicker, get better gas milage, wear tires slower, and probably lots of things I haven't thought of yet!
At least give us a lightweight option. I love my Cobra R. When ever I drive it, I wonder why Ford had to build just 250 of them that way. I love the way it rides, I do not notice the lack of sound deadening, I figure the cheapo interior is just part of going fast and stopping quick.
If you want a two ton boulevard cruiser, buy a Shelby! Make mine a option delete Boss!
10/3/06, 12:08 AM
#60
Almost my thoughts exactly. However, I would like to see an aluminum 3V 5.4L with ram air in my next GT. I think 340HP would be the minimum for that configuration.